Vested Pensionary Rights Protected from Retrospective Withdrawal Despite Appointments Following Corporate Formation On Compassionate Grounds

The applicants are legal heirs of Department of Telecommunications (DoT) employees who died in harness prior to the formation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) on October 1, 2000

While the applicants were approved for compassionate appointment by the DoT and commenced training before October 1, 2000, their formal appointment orders were issued shortly after the formation of BSNL

Consequently, Presidential Orders were issued for their permanent absorption, treating them as DoT recruitees entitled to the Old Pension-cum-GPF Scheme

However, in 2008, the respondents converted their status to EPF, and in June 2020, issued orders (Annexures A-1 to A-5) seeking to cancel the Presidential Orders on the ground that the applicants joined after the BSNL cutoff date

The applicants challenged these orders, seeking parity with similarly situated employees in previous litigation

1. Whether the applicants, whose compassionate appointment process was initiated by the DoT prior to the formation of BSNL, should be treated as DoT recruitees/BSNL absorbees entitled to the Old Pension-cum-GPF Scheme

2. Whether the respondents can legally cancel Presidential Orders and alter the pensionary status of employees after a significant lapse of time (17-18 years)

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which governs the pensionary benefits of government employees absorbed into public sector undertakings

It relied on the doctrine of "Legitimate Expectation" as established in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India

Regarding the right to equal treatment, it applied principles from Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India and K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, which mandate that similarly situated persons must be granted the same relief

Furthermore, it utilized the ruling in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih to prevent the withdrawal of long-standing benefits to the detriment of employees, and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India to affirm that pension is a vested right rather than a bounty

The Tribunal reasoned that because the deceased employees were DoT staff and the compassionate appointment process—including training—had been substantially completed under the DoT prior to October 1, 2000, the applicants had accrued enforceable rights

The Tribunal found that the subsequent issuance of Presidential Orders and the deduction of GPF contributions for several years created a "legitimate expectation" that could not be arbitrarily retracted

It rejected the respondents' argument that the applicants were fresh BSNL recruits, noting that policy clarifications from 2001 and 2003 specifically covered compassionate appointees of deceased DoT employees under the GPF scheme

The Tribunal further observed that the issue was already adjudicated in T.A. No. 35/PB/2009, and denying the applicants the same benefit would constitute "hostile discrimination" under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The delay of nearly two decades in seeking to cancel the Presidential Orders was deemed "arbitrary" and legally unsustainable

The Original Application was allowed, and the impugned orders dated June 17/23, 2020 (Annexures A-1 to A-5) were quashed. The respondents were directed to extend the benefits of the Old Pension-cum-GPF Scheme and all consequential benefits to the applicants. The interim protection against the cancellation of Presidential Orders was made permanent.